SAVE BASIC PILOT-What pOrK Does Not Want You to Know
TN HR
1,170 Posts
Here's a shocking report on the SAVE BASIC pilot being touted by pOrK as the greatest thing since fried bologna. It proves my findings, as well as the sentiments of other qualified and credible HR professionals such as Don D are correct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House Judiciary Committee has approved a bill that would extend a pilot employment eligibility verification program for another five years, dramatically expand it from six states to all fifty, and obliterate statutory limits on the use of the program's database outside the employment context.
The committee approved the bill, HR 2359, despite the conclusion of a statutorily mandated independent study that the program should not be expanded, primarily because it relies on inaccurate and outdated information contained in Immigration and Naturalization Service databases, it raises unresolved problems related to privacy, and some of the employers who have participated in it have abused the program, engaging in prohibited practices. The bill, which passed the committee on Sept. 24, 2003, without a hearing, would make the pilot program's system available to any federal, state, or local agency seeking to verify a person's citizenship or immigration status. The bill would make both U.S. citizens and noncitizens subject to the information sharing, without providing any privacy protections whatsoever.
Current Status of Basic Pilot Program. The Basic Pilot is one of three employment eligibility verification pilot programs mandated by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), the other two being the Citizenship Attestation and the Machine-Readable programs. The latter two programs were terminated by the Bush administration after their expiration in April and May of 2003, leaving the Basic Pilot as the only one that continues to operate. Currently, it operates in six states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and Nebraska.
The Basic Pilot Evaluation. Section 405 of the IIRIRA required the attorney general to provide "the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and of the Senate with reports on the pilot programs within 3 months after the end of the third and fourth years in which the programs" were in effect. These statutorily mandated reports were issued late, in Jan. 2002, shortly after the pilot programs had been extended by Congress and the president for an additional two years.
The evaluation of the Basic Pilot was conducted for the Justice Dept. by two independent private contractors, the Institute for Survey Research at Temple University, and Westat. The evaluation report identified several critical problems with the program and concluded that it "is not ready for larger-scale implementation at this time."
Among the problems cited by the report:
* The program was hindered by inaccuracies and outdated information in the INS databases. In excess of 20% of the sample used was granted authorization even though less than 5% was actually eligible for employment in the United States.
* The program did not consistently provide timely immigration status data, which delayed the confirmation of workers' employment authorization in one-third of the cases. (The primary victims of the inaccuracy and unreliability of INS databases were those workers who were penalized by employers unsure of the workers' employment eligibility, according to the report.)
* A sizeable number of workers who were not confirmed as employment-eligible by the Basic Pilot were indeed work-authorized but, for a variety of reasons, had not straightened out their records with the INS or the Social Security Administration (SSA). (Forty-two percent of a possibly unrepresentative sample of such workers were found to be work-authorized, compared to less than 25 percent who were "most likely" unauthorized.)
* Some employers surveyed did not follow the federally mandated memorandum of understanding that they were required to sign as a condition of participating in the Basic Pilot.
* Participating employers engaged in prohibited employment practices, including:
- Preemployment screening, which not only denies the worker a job but also the opportunity to contest database inaccuracies;
- Taking adverse employment action based on tentative determinations, which penalizes workers while they and the INS work to resolve database errors; and
- Failing to inform workers of their rights under the program.
* Some employers compromised the privacy of workers in various ways, such as by failing to safeguard access to the computer used to maintain the pilot system, e.g., by leaving passwords and instructions in plain view.
* Some employers missed deadlines required by the pilot program and failed to inform workers of their rights when the system was unable to confirm their work authorization.
* Some employers continued to employ workers even when the pilot's system did not confirm their employment eligibility.
* The INS and the SSA were not accessible: 39 percent of employers reported that the SSA never or only sometimes returned their calls promptly, and 43 percent reported a similar experience with the INS.
* The cost to expand the pilot program to all employers and to convert it from a voluntary to a mandatory system would exceed $11 billion.
The evaluation, which cost the INS millions of dollars to commission, flatly rejected any notion that the program should be significantly expanded. According to its authors:
The evaluation uncovered sufficient problems in the design and implementation of the current program to preclude recommending that it be significantly expanded. Some of these problems could become insurmountable if the program were to be expanded dramatically in scope. The question remains whether the program can be modified in a way that will permit it to maintain or enhance its current benefits while overcoming its weaknesses [emphasis added].
No evidence was presented to the Judiciary Committee that the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS), which took over the functions of the INS in March 2003, had solved any of the problems identified in the report. Nor would HR 2359 require that the DHS provide Congress with periodic reports detailing the steps it had taken to address these problems, the number of employers that were participating in each pilot program, all of the states they were operating in, and plans to expand or change the technology used by each program, nor its plans to increase safeguards against unfair immigration-related employment practices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The evaluation, which cost the INS millions of dollars to commission, flatly rejected any notion that the program should be significantly expanded"
Now, that's a REAL shocker! It took me less than one hour to figure this out in the privacy of my office, without incurring any taxpayer expenses.
I rest my case, pOrK.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House Judiciary Committee has approved a bill that would extend a pilot employment eligibility verification program for another five years, dramatically expand it from six states to all fifty, and obliterate statutory limits on the use of the program's database outside the employment context.
The committee approved the bill, HR 2359, despite the conclusion of a statutorily mandated independent study that the program should not be expanded, primarily because it relies on inaccurate and outdated information contained in Immigration and Naturalization Service databases, it raises unresolved problems related to privacy, and some of the employers who have participated in it have abused the program, engaging in prohibited practices. The bill, which passed the committee on Sept. 24, 2003, without a hearing, would make the pilot program's system available to any federal, state, or local agency seeking to verify a person's citizenship or immigration status. The bill would make both U.S. citizens and noncitizens subject to the information sharing, without providing any privacy protections whatsoever.
Current Status of Basic Pilot Program. The Basic Pilot is one of three employment eligibility verification pilot programs mandated by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), the other two being the Citizenship Attestation and the Machine-Readable programs. The latter two programs were terminated by the Bush administration after their expiration in April and May of 2003, leaving the Basic Pilot as the only one that continues to operate. Currently, it operates in six states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and Nebraska.
The Basic Pilot Evaluation. Section 405 of the IIRIRA required the attorney general to provide "the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and of the Senate with reports on the pilot programs within 3 months after the end of the third and fourth years in which the programs" were in effect. These statutorily mandated reports were issued late, in Jan. 2002, shortly after the pilot programs had been extended by Congress and the president for an additional two years.
The evaluation of the Basic Pilot was conducted for the Justice Dept. by two independent private contractors, the Institute for Survey Research at Temple University, and Westat. The evaluation report identified several critical problems with the program and concluded that it "is not ready for larger-scale implementation at this time."
Among the problems cited by the report:
* The program was hindered by inaccuracies and outdated information in the INS databases. In excess of 20% of the sample used was granted authorization even though less than 5% was actually eligible for employment in the United States.
* The program did not consistently provide timely immigration status data, which delayed the confirmation of workers' employment authorization in one-third of the cases. (The primary victims of the inaccuracy and unreliability of INS databases were those workers who were penalized by employers unsure of the workers' employment eligibility, according to the report.)
* A sizeable number of workers who were not confirmed as employment-eligible by the Basic Pilot were indeed work-authorized but, for a variety of reasons, had not straightened out their records with the INS or the Social Security Administration (SSA). (Forty-two percent of a possibly unrepresentative sample of such workers were found to be work-authorized, compared to less than 25 percent who were "most likely" unauthorized.)
* Some employers surveyed did not follow the federally mandated memorandum of understanding that they were required to sign as a condition of participating in the Basic Pilot.
* Participating employers engaged in prohibited employment practices, including:
- Preemployment screening, which not only denies the worker a job but also the opportunity to contest database inaccuracies;
- Taking adverse employment action based on tentative determinations, which penalizes workers while they and the INS work to resolve database errors; and
- Failing to inform workers of their rights under the program.
* Some employers compromised the privacy of workers in various ways, such as by failing to safeguard access to the computer used to maintain the pilot system, e.g., by leaving passwords and instructions in plain view.
* Some employers missed deadlines required by the pilot program and failed to inform workers of their rights when the system was unable to confirm their work authorization.
* Some employers continued to employ workers even when the pilot's system did not confirm their employment eligibility.
* The INS and the SSA were not accessible: 39 percent of employers reported that the SSA never or only sometimes returned their calls promptly, and 43 percent reported a similar experience with the INS.
* The cost to expand the pilot program to all employers and to convert it from a voluntary to a mandatory system would exceed $11 billion.
The evaluation, which cost the INS millions of dollars to commission, flatly rejected any notion that the program should be significantly expanded. According to its authors:
The evaluation uncovered sufficient problems in the design and implementation of the current program to preclude recommending that it be significantly expanded. Some of these problems could become insurmountable if the program were to be expanded dramatically in scope. The question remains whether the program can be modified in a way that will permit it to maintain or enhance its current benefits while overcoming its weaknesses [emphasis added].
No evidence was presented to the Judiciary Committee that the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS), which took over the functions of the INS in March 2003, had solved any of the problems identified in the report. Nor would HR 2359 require that the DHS provide Congress with periodic reports detailing the steps it had taken to address these problems, the number of employers that were participating in each pilot program, all of the states they were operating in, and plans to expand or change the technology used by each program, nor its plans to increase safeguards against unfair immigration-related employment practices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The evaluation, which cost the INS millions of dollars to commission, flatly rejected any notion that the program should be significantly expanded"
Now, that's a REAL shocker! It took me less than one hour to figure this out in the privacy of my office, without incurring any taxpayer expenses.
I rest my case, pOrK.
Comments
Say it ain't so.
* "Participating employers engaged in prohibited employment practices, including:
- Preemployment screening"
You don't say! Now screening is going to be prohibited by the government? A left-wing conspiracy, for sure.
* "Some employers continued to employ workers even when the pilot's system did not confirm their employment eligibility."
Sort of like they've done since the inception of the INS I-9 program?
* "The INS and the SSA were not accessible: 39 percent of employers reported that the SSA never or only sometimes returned their calls promptly, and 43 percent reported a similar experience with the INS."
Please tell me it did not take three parallel government studies to conclude that the government is unresponsive to telephone calls.
"No evidence was presented to the Judiciary Committee that the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS), which took over the functions of the INS in March 2003, had solved any of the problems identified in the report."
But the other objective, the one of putting hundreds of cronies and family members in cushy civil service jobs.....that one has been a soaring success!
Gene
It is the expansion of the BASIC PILOT SAVE PROGRAM, that allowed me the opportunity to gain real hands-on documentation for our hiring practices. I now have 9 of of 9 documented hiring actions with the "stamp of approval" of my government and one of those included a foreign national, who was treated with the foremost respect and desire for him to continue being employed with our company; unfortunately, for him he was not able to get his data corrected and did not return. I gave him your address and recommended that he try getting on with your company.
That is a 100% success rate, two of our FORUM members have used the SAVE system for years with no displeasure of the system and they have voiced their success. I am sure there are many many more and the number will continue to grow.
It looks like to me that just maybe the staff has listened and corrected or are correcting the data bank and glitches in the system. But one key element of change is: a "willing player" to tell them what is right, good, and wrong so that they will know, what needs to be fixed.
Some MOU signatures abused the system, they checked on their current employees or future employees without the enrollment process and applied wrongful terminations or punishment. We have not and will not violate our MOU; I do all I-9 verifications and will continue to do so until it becomes fully born and no longer considered a PILOT PROGRAM.
3 years ago, when we joined the SSA verification system, we found that there were several mis-matches of the data bank for all of our employees like gender/ name spellings /birthdates. This was not only allowed but encouraged. We suspended our employees and had them go to the SSA and return with corrected data sheets, which we took and submitted changes in the next quarter to IRS and our 401 K, and medical enrollment cases. (we paid these employees when they returned.) The system was not broken it was the inaccurate data from data input errors. Since having the SSA system of verification on-board we have had no further mis-matches, again 100% success of that program. You see the SSA staff working the soft-ware development, out here where the rubber meets the road, did a great job and made system changes to make the system more reliable. We also had no foreign nationals enrolled, because we made the job offer and got the information required to validate the SSA data bank. Again a 100% success rate. In January we began to have foreign nationals coming to our office for hiring and their SSN was verified on line. We enrolled and put them to work. I then sought out the project manager for the SSA test program, he referred me to the on-line site, we enrolled with a signed MOU and again we are 100% satisfied.
May all FORUM MEMBERS, who will listen and read these words the SAVE system is available to you, today and for many of us it works! It is not unlawful to follow the guidance of your MOU.
The DHS is new to this employer, but I remain comfortable that by following the MOU and exercising the system and the devoted staff, the inconsistencies in the verification system will be resolved over time and enhance the hiring practices of the using employer. It provides the necessary documentation to validate the employment of anyone and not just the foreign nationals seeking employment; it is easy to operate once you get trained and exercise the system.
TN HR: I still to not understand, your desire and efforts to "shoot down" with public comments and research to provide 1 hour of your holiday time, a posting on the FORUM which is so damning of my singular post that said HEY, FORUM MEMBERS THIS IS OUT THERE AND I FOR ONE RECOMMEND YOUR USE. It is available to everyone regardless of the sucommittee, congress, TN HR, DON, or congressman from Memphis, TN. It was from my first post that you went out to destroy and put all sorts of words of indifference in your writings, to what end, I certainly don,t know.
The SAVE PROGRAM is still coming and the system is going to do what it is designed to do inspite of your efforts to "shoot it down". Honestly, I could care less about what you or any other FORUM member does with this opportunity. My documentation and hiring practices will move forward and will enhance our employer/employee team of employees who are authorized to work in our country.
Just maybe, my congressional deligation will help us (HRs every where) get it right to include the illegal aliens already employed.